S.3804 - Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

A bill to combat online infringement, and for other purposes. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act as introduced.
  • Official: A bill to combat online infringement, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act as reported to senate.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 61-90 of 91 total comments.

d_bo_fightsback 09/29/2010 9:56pm

While our government on hand hand tells other countries to lessen restrictions on their people regarding internet freedom. We have a misguided politician that belives that the federal governments knows best, that they again believe they have the right to regulate the lives of private citizens. They believe they have the obligation to police and control everything. The internet doesnt belong to them. It was created with the freedom of all man to have free access to the internet and all its content.

i oppose s.3804

isarmstrong 11/29/2010 10:44am
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 1:02pm

Billions is it? Let’s see a citation for those numbers.

My guess is that you are making a blind assumption: that someone who streams music or downloads a TV episode they missed would have otherwise bought it. In most cases, they would simply give it a miss and pay for something more entertaining.

Record and movie executives seen “billions” in lost revenue to people who will store a digital copy of something they may never even listen to (8 of 10 songs on an album) and would certainly never pay for under other circumstances (Really? You wanted how much for each episode of Heroes on iTunes?)

But I digress, that tends to happen when I come into contact with one of the “faithful” who has an almost religious zeal for the (often unconstitutional) actions of a few government wonks.

isarmstrong 11/29/2010 10:45am
in reply to Taylor_L Oct 27, 2010 8:10pm


Is it?

isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:50am
in reply to isarmstrong Nov 29, 2010 11:48am

+ Command-and-control management styles both derive from and reinforce bureaucracy, power tripping and an overall culture of paranoia.
Paranoia kills conversation. That’s its point. But lack of open conversation kills companies.
+ There are two conversations going on. One inside the company. One with the market.
+ In most cases, neither conversation is going very well. Almost invariably, the cause of failure can be traced to obsolete notions of command and control.
+ As policy, these notions are poisonous. As tools, they are broken. Command and control are met with hostility by intranetworked knowledge workers and generate distrust in internetworked markets.

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

isarmstrong 11/29/2010 11:44am
in reply to kevinmcc Nov 27, 2010 1:26pm

Including torrent-finder, which only lists sites that in some cases (not all) deal in copyrighted materials (though not in their entirety).


So ICE has shut down sites guilty of no crime except TALKING about other sites with censored materials.

Never mind our first amendment rights, we weren’t using them anyway.

Well some of us upstarts were… have no doubt, we’re next.

Taospark 12/19/2011 11:21am
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 12:27pm

Most of the RIAA’s statistics are false and presumptuous at best. It’s either naive or dishonest to assume that every single person who pirates or infringes on an IP would ever be a customer, or that they would do so given the general disposition of the entertainment sector.

In fact, many new musicians are giving away their content for free on Youtube and other sites while finding this openness rewarded with both donations and purchases. The RIAA defends record companies who have ripped off musicians for half a century and this bill was another terrible attempt to defend a fleeting monopoly.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:02pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to Munio Oct 02, 2010 3:51am

This law actually states that “We will delete sites that are stealing billions from thousands of people, and try to protect the rights of Copyright and limit Piracy.”

I’m sorry you feel that this is communistic, but it’s only trying to protect our “Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” by stopping the sites that illegally allow people to download and share audio and video.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:56pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Oct 27, 2010 9:41am

You just need to have faith in this law. You need to assume that the Attorney General will be faithful and responsible.

You also need to realize that Copyright infringement IS objectionable. Besides, censorship is meant to keep specific images/ ideas away from a specific group of people (such as a bleep when someone swears)

If the person/ people are stealing from someone, then “censorship” is necessary. wouldn’t you be angry if someone stole money from you after you put in hours of hard work?
Unless you’re a millionaire, or unless you work for free at your job, then you would have a problem with someone stealing from you.
If you have a problem with someone stealing from you, why don’t you have a problem with people stealing from others?

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:42pm
Link Reply
+ -1

Sure, you can say “It’s just an example! This would never happen!” but billions of dollars are being stolen from companies every day because someone isn’t willing to pay $20 for a book or a CD, and won’t spend $30-$50 to own a movie. Billions are also stolen by people who can’t pay $1 for the redbox at Walmart to rent a movie, and who can’t pay $10 a month for hearing unlimited music.

It’s not censorship. It’s not injustice. It’s protection for people, companies, and stores from people who abuse the rights of others for their selfish gain.

I support this bill and everything it’s trying to do. I don’t care how useless you think it is, or how the founding fathers didn’t write in provisions concerning the internet, or how you think it’s a fascist/ communistic way to regulate all internet.
It’s just trying to stop people freom performing illicit activities.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:31pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to libercogito Sep 29, 2010 2:15am

Yeah. They can make a site quickly and re-post all the music onto a new site.

Does that mean that the principle of trying to stop copyright infringement is wrong?

Look, I realize that piracy will never be completely stopped. I know that more sites will pop up and steal millions from hard-working musicians, recording studios, stores that sell the CD’s and movies, and numerous other people.

But that’s no reason to completely abandon the principle behind it. Piracy is illegal, and should be limited as much as possible.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 2:23pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Oct 30, 2010 11:52am

Copyright Infringements like LimeWire, Nappster, and Shareaza don’t earn a profit. That is true.
However, they are stealing the profits from other people by downloading their CD’s for free. Thousands are doing it, and billions of dollars are stolen yearly from companies who can’t stop the websites. the digital people may not have a profit, but they still are doing illegal activities by distributing music, movies, books, and games illegally.

I don’t quite understand “distribution purposes,” but here’s what I assume you are saying. You are saying that some people may want their songs distributed to gain popularity. If they want to do that, they can either place their music on iTunes for a fee, or open up their own website to do so. They shouldn’t go to a website that distributes music illegally, because then it will be deleted by this. If they really want to distribute it, they can. And, if it’s SO EASY to make a site, then they should be able to as well.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:50pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to d_bo_fightsback Sep 29, 2010 9:56pm

Ok. The internet doesn’t belong to the politicians. That’s a valid point.

Here’s the problem with your argument, though. While other countries are restricting websites about historical facts, information about the world around them, and limiting a person’s right to learn about the freedoms of other countries, The U.S. is trying to restrict Copyright infringement and limit the amount of piracy that goes on.

People have the internet for “free access,” but when they steal from others with that “free access,” they may as well not have it.
Instead of incarcerating everyone who commits copyright infringement and jailing those who use a counterfeit CD, we should just stop the websites that steal from others.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:59pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to Gruesomex Nov 01, 2010 11:00am

then, Gruesomex, follow the idea that the Constitution states that Legislation has the right “To promote the Progress of Sciences and usefull Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective writings and Discoveries.”

They also have the right “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers.”

Is this a good law? Yes.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 2:36pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 2:23pm

And, even if new websites open up, people can still delete them. The hassle isn’t opening the websites. The hassle is re-posting the millions of songs that are on it.

So, let em make more sites. It’s their life they’re wasting. And, by the time that it’s all set, the website will probably be destroyed.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:40pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to nmeagent Sep 29, 2010 4:12pm

Would ppl if 1787 know about the internet?

The Constitution gives Legislation the right “To promote the Progress of Sciences and usefull Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective writings and Discoveries.”

The Legislation also has the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers.” That includes protecting against copyright infringement.

Both of these were in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers knew that the times would change, so they made the Constitution a “Living” document to ensure that all rights were protected. They couldn’t see the internet, but they could expect a problem with it.

Please read the Constitution if you don’t believe me. I did.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 12:21pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to jgardner03 Sep 27, 2010 9:47am

You need to understand, that Piracy and Copyright infringement is a serious issue. You are literally stealing from someone who spent their time, money, and effort to express their own views and ideas. When people steala CD or movie, they steal from the people who create, advertise, distribute, and sell them.
You also need to have faith in the Government that we have. They won’t just delete every site online that insults them or questions the government. People wouldn’t allow someone to delete all sites like facebook or MySpace or YouTube: Only stuff like Lime Wire, Nappster, and Shareaza.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:51pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to Vladdie93 Nov 18, 2010 1:51pm

(P.S. People should really have more faith in our government! People need to have faith that political officials won’t take advantage of any power to the point of corruption. It also isn’t censorship to stop a site if it’s a site that steals from people.)

Munio 10/02/2010 3:51am
Link Reply
+ -2

This bill S. 3804. basically states: The American consumer should be told by the Government on how to purchase and what sites to buy from. However, to be optomistic, this bill could significantly reduce fake goods entering into the United States (e.g., via China). Unfortunately, this is yet another baby-step into living under the iron curtain.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:26pm
Link Reply
+ -2

I see people stealing all the time. I see companies losing a profit to people who want to listen to some song for free, or because they want to play a game without paying for it.
When someone downloads a CD, movie, book, or game, they aren’t just stealing from one person. They’re stealing from every single person who created, recorded, advertised, and produced the item. They are also stealing from the people who sell and distribute the item for others to enjoy.

Here’s why I feel so strongly about this issue: I am an aspiring musician, with hopes of making it to the top. I want to do what I love, and spend as much time, effort, and resources as I need to to fo as far as I can go.

Let’s say you wrote a book. You spent months thinking about just the right words to say, and place them coherently into a binder.

Now, you get a publisher to distribute your book. You finally got it in stores (after months of waiting and millions of dollars from the company).

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:51pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to 4ofjulyguy Nov 01, 2010 11:32am

So, what should we do? should we just let people steal whatever they want because more sites will keep popping up?

Should you let people steal cars because more cars will be made?
Should you let people steal food because more will be made?
Should people steal money because more is circulated every year?

This bill is trying to create a more stable protection of copyright issues. Should people just wait until the perfect bill is made to put it into law?

Our country didn’t start out perfect. We used the Articles of Confederation. Writing the “perfect bill” you both are hoping for won’t happen without lesser bills to learn from.

We need to fight the problem. And if this bill doesn’t work, we make a new one. You don’t learn something without making mistakes.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:59pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to dkliman Nov 15, 2010 6:15am

First, HAVE SOME FAITH!!! The Attorney General won’t just stop websites on a whim. He’s going to do his job and stop sites that perform copyright infringement.

second, THIS IS A COPYRIGHT LAW!!! It’s trying to stop the sites that recklessly and terribly distribute music without the consent of the musicians or studios who work so hard to make it. You don’t just need to make laws, you need to enforce them too. To enforce them, you need to stop the sites that are breaking them.

You have the freedom to do what you please, but when you infringe upon other’s freedoms by stealing, then there’s a problem.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:32pm
Link Reply
+ -3

However, to your dismay, you only sell 1/3 of the projected books. (if you made 1,000, you sold 333).
Sure. Not EVERYONE will buy a book. not every single person will want a book by an author they don’t know. But it was a GOOD BOOK! It must have been, since the publishers thought so.

Someone created a website “http://www.dropslot.com” (DON’T TRY THAT SITE! IT’S JUST AN EXAMPLE) that had your book inside it. According to their site, 400 other people downloaded that book.

You are crushed. The Publisher won’t buy the rights to your books again, since you decreased their profit and were a negative investment. You won’t be invested in again, since other companies know your book was a failure in stores. Now, you aren’t able to make another book because people stole it.

nmeagent 09/29/2010 4:12pm
Link Reply
+ -3

Here’s a flaw: the federal government is not granted the power to regulate Internet content by the Constitution.

Vladdie93 11/18/2010 1:04pm
Link Reply
+ -3
in reply to Taylor_L Oct 28, 2010 6:39am


People, it’s not censorship if it stops an illicit activities from occuring.

Vote on This Bill

10% Users Support Bill

43 in favor / 371 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments